With the controversies over Solyndra and Fast and Furious showing no signs of going away anytime soon, President Obama faces an uphill battle of staying focused on winning re-election next November.

Fox leaves out one tiny, relevant fact in this article, which, if they had any integrity whatsoever, might actually provide their viewers with a true "fair and balanced" article.

Both of these so-called "threatening controversies" aren't really that at all. Especially considering the fact that both of these programs originated in the Bush administration. I dare anyone to search through LexisNexis and provide me with a single written or broadcast article from the Fox empire indicating they treated these activities as a "controversy" while Bush was doing it? Just one.

It's only a controversy because Fox wants to believe it is. They can't fight Obama in the arena of ideas and vision so they have to desperately resort to muckraking and smearing and misinforming. That is their stock in trade - oppose Obama and the Democrats at every turn. And that ideological bent, in and of itself and in a sane world, ought to preclude Fox from referring to themselves as a "news" organization. The fact of the matter is they're really nothing more than a GOP Political Action Committee

Here are links to stories showing how these "controversies" weren't controversial while Bush was presiding over them:

And please - don't respond to me with your childish taunt - "oh yeah, if Fox is so bad, how come they're the #1 rated cable news channel? - huh? huh? Neener-neener" bullshit. Nearly 50% of Americans believe in the existence of ghosts too [LINK HERE]. All that proves is that there are a lot of fucking morons in this country - nothing more.

The bottom line is - if you are getting all of your information from Fox News re: the Solyndra and Fast and Furious "controversies," which Fox brags has great potential to bring down the Obama Presidency, you are basically getting a doctored, biased history of those issues - and if you want to delude yourself into believing that that equates to "Fair and Balanced" - delude yourself away.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

This is uniquely disgusting and infuriating especially considering the fact that Liz Cheney has spent the majority of her post-college, adult life living off of the tax-payer teat by riding her father's slimy coattails into the halls of government. She's the perfect poster child for the rank insidiousness of government nepotism. Not to mention that she's simply an awful human being - but you know what they say - the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

October 27, 2011 03:00 PMLiz Cheney Leading the Defense of Ohio Gov. John Kasich's Collective Bargaining Assault
By Kenneth Quinnell

Liz Cheney and her ilk, quite frankly, can eat shit and die for all I care.

Warren Buffett isn’t the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.

A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.

Rich people’s opinions of Buffett remain fairly positive in the wake of his tax-me-more crusade. More than a third of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worths said they have a more positive opinion of Buffett after his tax proposal. Only 19% of millionaires and 22% of the $5 million -plus group said they had a more negative opinion of him after the proposal.

More than 40% of both groups said their opinion hadn’t changed.

In other words, Buffett’s proposal had more supporters than detractors among the rich — though that support declines slightly as you move up the wealth ladder.

It begs the obvious question then as to why Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Teabaggers are so rabid dog supportive of the the glaringly small minority of super wealthy? Their relentless zeal to give even more tax breaks to people who have absolutely no need for them, while simultaneously increasing the tax burden on the middle class and the working poor, slashing and burning benefits for workers and cutting funding of social programs aimed at assisting the destitute, the unemployed and the elderly, it truly makes one wonder who the fuck's side they are on? Oh "we're on the side of the job creators," they will say. How often does that hoary old myth need to be debunked before it's seen as the load of cockamamie horse shit that it is?

So - to put it matter of factly - we are now at the stage where a majority of Americans, Democrat and Republican, support higher taxes on the super wealthy. A majority of millionaires support taxes on the super wealthy. And yet a small minority of self serving, ideological assholes in Congress are holding up progress on this issue and and in the process preventing America from getting back on the path to national recovery. Why? And what is their motive? And when will the whore media stop pretending that this isn't a situation of a corrupted minority thwarting the will of the majority?

The Occupy Wall Streeters are absolutely fucking right as to why shit needs to change. And it begins with making the job destroying, super wealthy pay their fair fucking share not only for the carnage that they created with their Wall Street gambling sprees and their under-writing of ill-advised wars of choice, but also because they have so rigged the system in their favor that it undermines the chances of anyone else in American society getting a leg up on the economic merry-go-round.

The "job creators" clique needs to be brought down a few pegs to even the playing field. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

I know that it rankles some of my conservative friends when I generalize and broad brush paint conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Obviously, not EVERY single conservative exhibits the traits of our cave dwelling ancestors, but it's equally obvious that a high percentage of their ranks most certainly do.

Take this guy for instance. GOP representative Steve King of Iowa. He continually gets re-elected to office even after making statements like this one:

KING:As I roll this thing back and I think of American history, there was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game.

Now the way I see it, if you are in agreement with King, that male property owners (overwhelmingly white and wealthy mind you) are the only people who should have the right to vote in America, then you have no leg to stand on when I refer to you as a knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

And honestly -- tell me the teabaggers don't eat that shit up. And sadly they are completely oblivious to the reality that once the ruling elites start down the slippery slope of denying voting rights based on wealth, it's just a matter of time before the teanuts themselves are denied the same right and eventually America reverts back to it's 17th century origins of British monarchy-type rule where Lords and Nobles and royalty ruled with an iron fist over the non-land owning serfs.

And as for those dirty fucking hippies currently marching on Wall Street, and now in several other major cities, they are marching primarily to protest that type of wholesale destruction of Democracy. In fact, in my view, the Occupy Wall Street protesters have more in common with the original Boston Tea Party event and players than the current teabaggers do. Historian Benjamin Carp explains pretty clearly how that is so in this WaPo article published at the height of the tea party hysteria in 2009.

So, while my generalizations of the weak intellectual acumen of conservatives is frequently overly broad, it's not too far off the mark, particularly as it relates to their knowledge of the history of American democracy and the events which precipitated it, nurtured it and made it the foremost formidable and freest nation in the history of mankind. I do not feel compelled to apologize for or further expound upon those views.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

No - that is not the headline for an article from the news parody site The Onion.

An obviously inebriated shit-kicking, right wing cowboy singer goes on Fox and says Obama is Hitler and next thing you know the Teabaggers are promoting him as the next great political leader of their movement (until the moment Caribou Barbie decides to jump in that is).

Aside from demonstrating just how absurdly shallow they are, the Teanuts truly are clueless as to the level of racism that they project to those who don't necessarily see the world with the same black and white viewpoint with which they do.

I mean it's so obvious that I have no doubt, and would not be shocked in the least, that if Mitt Romney were go out and give a stump speech tomorrow and openly call Obama a dirty nigger, he'd have the GOP 2012 nomination sewn up in one fell swoop.